Skip to main content
11:00 pm
>> paul: this week on the "the journal editorial report" -- a holy war here in america. the domestic islamic terror threat is real, but are we prepared to fight it? as the president gets ready to make his afghanistan announcement, democrats say they won't support more troops without tax increase. and they tee off on tim geithner. some say the treasury secretary should go. is he the one making economic policy in this administration? welcome to the "the journal editorial report." i'm paul gigot. federal officials this week announce charge against eight people they say helped recruit dozens of young americans to join
11:01 pm
al-qaeda-linked group in somalia. the charges are part of an investigation into disappearance of more than 20 young somali men from minneapolis over the last two years. most of them u.s. citizens who federal authorities say travel to somalia to join a terrorist group fighting to establish a muslim state in somalia and pledged its allegiance to osama bin laden. they say it's one of the most expense i doive domestic investigation since september 11. and with the fort hood massacre, it raises the question how to deal with the homegown terrorist? great to have you back on the program, raul. >> my pleasure. >> paul: how serious, how widespread and significant is this domestic islamic terror threat? >> well, i think a simple answer is we don't know. i mean we know it's less
11:02 pm
serious than what we've seen in europe. for example in great britain, the mi-5 literally runs hundreds of surveillance cases against islamic militants who could go violent. we don't have that type of a threat in the united states. but we do have one. that's pretty of cour pretty p obvious. we have taken too heightly danger of the propaganda in the united states and the extent to which the mosques in the united states can reinforce these attitudes. so it's something that requires a lot more effort on the part of the bureau. >> paul: what are the triggering episodes that inspire a young muslim american to go over to al-qaeda? i'm thinking in particular of this recent somali episode, because it seems that some of
11:03 pm
them were radicalized if that is the right word by the invasion by ethiopia of somalia in 2007 that the united states supported. can it be one event like that? >> yes. there are many factors that come into play and there has been excellent studies looking at islamic militants, particularly those in europe. and you do tend to esee a pattern. first, there tends to be something deeply personal that strikes that believer and it r radicalizes him and makes him believe that the muslim community at large, what is almost a virtual oomah, the community of believers at risk and he personally must rise to the challenge and must become a jihadist and fight for the community. there are other factors that come into play, but usually
11:04 pm
there are some combination of something of what we call explicitly political and something deeply personal, the two go together. the next thing you know you have an individual who in normal circumstances seems okay and suddenly is radicalized and quite willing to kill others or kill himself. >> paul: this suggests that you have a necessity almost for an almost permanent monitoring of elements of the muslim community in the united states. is that what the f.b.i. is really going to have to do? monitor mosques and infiltrate the communities? you're saying it could be spontaneous combust combustion way. >> in europe you have areas that are close to that, particularly if great britain and france who both have seen very active militant movements who both experienced consider violence. you do have a penetration of
11:05 pm
the islamic community, which is discreet but pervasive. >> paul: by the spy services. >> i think you're going to have to see something like that in the united states. one hopes that it is discreet and one hopes it doesn't violate civil liberties but you need to have a service, the f.b.i. needs to become better at building relationships with the islamic community in the united states. particularly, monitoring any organization which is espousing militant views, receiving money from saudi arabia, that is potentially dangerous. >> paul: let me pursue that point on the f.b.i. you've been critical of the f.b.i., saying it doesn't take religion seriously enough as a motivator of potential domestic terrorism. what should be the f.b.i. be doing that it's not doing? >> well, i think the f.b.i.
11:06 pm
has to become a lot more curious. that is it's very difficult for the f.b.i., which is a law enforcement agency to actually pursue leads before crimes are committed. and intelligence you have to make certain assumptions, not nice assumptions that certain individuals may be guilty even though they haven't committed a crime. you have to engage in surveillance before a crime is committed. i mean successful count counterterrorism is about p preemption. you have to do something before the bomb goes off and before people are shot. it does require the f.b.i. to be a lot more aggressive, to be a lot more curious, to run much more extensive human intelligent networks in the united states. it's difficult because they don't have a tradition of doing this. >> paul: runs against their culture.
11:07 pm
>> well, no, they definitely don't have this, it's not within their culture. they are not an intelligence service. also, the united states has a different tradition, different legal, different ethical tradition. it is very difficult in the united states to run essentially what we're talking about here, a domestic intelligence service. >> paul: well, thank you so much for those observations. when we come back, as president obama prepares to announce his afghanistan decision, democrats say they won't support a troop increase without a big tax increase. yg;wwgkóçó37wcwówg'çówóçoo i drove my first car from my parent's home
11:08 pm
in the north of england to my new job at the refinery in the south. i'll never forget. it used one tank of petrol and i had to refill it twice with oil. a new car today has 95% lower emissions than in 1970. exxonmobil is working to improve cars, liners of tires, plastics which are lighter and advanced hydrogen technologies that could increase fuel efficiency by up to 80%.
11:09 pm
>> paul: as president obama prepares to make an announcement on afghanistan next week, some democrats are
11:10 pm
saying they won't support a troop increase without a bigger tax increase to go with it. there ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into afghanistan. house appropriation committee chairman david obe told abc news recently -- he and others are floating the idea of a war surtax on all taxpayers, up to whopping 5 percentage point on bracket. joining the panel deputy editor danhenniger, mary an staizia o'grady and washington columnist kki isist strauss. when president bush's tax cuts expire it takes taxes up to 10%. add in healthcare surtax and it gets up to 45% and now the
11:11 pm
war surtax and the federal rate goes to 50% which in some states -- california, oregon, new york -- over 60%. are democrats serious about this? >> look i think at this point if you make more than $200,000 you ought to hand over your paycheck to washington. i think he is serious about making the case, chairman obey. i'm not sure it will go through for the reasons you said. with all the things they're putting forward, some democrats are getting nervous about the tax burden. this is mostly being done to inflict political pain on the president if he decides he's going to put more troops overseas. >> paul: wait a minute. political pain that the democrats want to impose on a democratic president? is that the motive here? >> try to get him to back off doing this. this is an anti-war congress. people like david obey have never been on board with the afghanistaner war. they were quiet for the most part while the president was on the campaign trail and
11:12 pm
making the case that iraq auz a bad war and afghanistan was good war. they're in charge and they hold the purse and want to put the threat out there to back off and get out. >> paul: this isn't just obey. carl levin is doing this, head of the armed services committee. jack murtha a force in the house. a real -- there is energy and motivation and momentum behind this. >> well, i think it's putting the president in a terrible dilemma. he has to make -- presumably we'll get the decision next tuesday about afghanistan. we assume he will make commitment of some level of troops but he is facing the prospect of creating anti-war movement within his own party. his own people. that is the last thing that the president wants. up to now it's only been an implicit threat. now it's becoming explicit. when tough chairman of the senate armed services committee and obey saying we
11:13 pm
don't want to go there. it makes it difficult for the president to make a commitm. >> paul: i know you're not old enough to remember this, but 1960s, lbj put on vietnam war tax, substantial one. >> and 1962 defense spending was 9% of gdp. now it's for for 2009 estimated at 4.7%. >> paul: amazing. that chu includes iraq and afghanistan. >> right. to kim's point about wanting them to back out of the war, another way to look at it is say that this is a display of the ideology, the welfare state is going to grow and as big as they can get it. they'll get as many dependents on the government as they can while they have the power. anything that gets in the way of that potentially makes the deficit look bad or anything, forget. they're going to fight every inch of the way. >> paul: let me talk about the argument that the liberals make.
11:14 pm
what is required is the sacrifi sacrifice. the troops sackry tyce rrifics. the families of troops sacrifice. the rest of us go on with your life. the least we can do is pay for the war effort. >> what is wrong with the argument is it's taking afghanistan and their idea outside of our political system. we have a federal budget. the federal budget pre pre-sumably is the result of political process in which the elected members of congress decide how much money they want to spend on medicare, medicaid, social security, the environment and defense. all of that takes place inside that process. they have reached the point now to do what they want to do on healthcare, they have to impose a 5.4% surtax. now they're arguing to conduct national security operations overseas we have to impose a special tax. i don't think it's shared sacrifice. that is a system exploding
11:15 pm
and coming apart. >> paul: i think what i hear you saying, mary, if you spend so much on butter as a necessity you won't spend as much on defense. and slowly by expanding the welfare state, what obey is saying sorry, we're going to be more like europe where they spend very little on defense. >> that is true if you have an economy not growing. if you put it together with their economic plan, they have to either get out of the war or give up on a lot of their ambitious social agenda. >> paul: all right, mary. thank you. when we come back, tim geithner on the hot seat. treasury secretary is under fire from both sides of the aisle. is he really in charge of obama's economic policy? and would it make any difference if he resigns?
11:16 pm
the world could use a little more space by moving 35,000 truckloads of freight each day csx trains give you more room on the highways
11:17 pm
because the world could use a little more space csx. how tomorrow moves.
11:18 pm
>> paul: it looks like some
11:19 pm
liberals and conservatives may agree on something that treasury secretary tim geithner has got to go. calls for his resignation came last week, first from peter defazio of oregon and then kevin brady of texas who confronted mr. geithner during his appearance on capitol hill. >> mr. secretary, you are the point man on the economy. the buck in effect stops with you. conservatives agree that as point person you failed. liberals are growing in that consensus as well. poll after ol shows the public has lost confidence in this president's ability to handle the economy for the sake of our jobs. will you step down from your post? >> the secretary declined mr. brady's invitation, we should tell our viewers. why is he taking the heat, geithner? >> well, he's got two problems. one is that he is now the
11:20 pm
international symbol for crony capitalism. >> paul: whoa! wait a minute. what do you mean by that? >> he was the president of the new york federal reserve bank when citigroup was a bank that should have been under his supervision and was off-running and off-balance sheet at portfolio filled with highly leveraged -- >> paul: this is about bail-out? not the current economy? >> this is problem one. then problem two is that he is as the congressman said, the point man for this economic policy. it's unfair to blame him. he is not someone who has a great understanding of economics. he is the guy and his career is about being willing to go out there and execute the plan for whoever tells him to do it. that's what he has done his whole life. he is executing a plan and someone else is telling him about. bad plan. economy is paralyzed,
11:21 pm
unemployment is going up and people are angry. he can't say well, i'm following orders. it doesn't work. >> paul: is geithner -- and larry summers, the chief white house financial advisor and christine romer, i hear they're not the one -- they have a role but political actors like rahm emanuel and david axelrod are as influential on economic policy. >> well, you know, tim geithner did not design the stimulus program. >> paul: that's what i mean. it was barney frank and david obey and nancy pelosi. >> they got to spend trillion dollars to fix the economy. they bought it owned it and no cash for clunkers program will bail them out. they have a 10% unemployment and they need a fall guy. it's tim geithner. >> is he a sock puppet? he should throw down his badge if it's a bad man. >> paul: the interesting thing is the degree to the left, the democratic left is
11:22 pm
very angry at geithner and summers and saying they just haven't been tough enough on the bankers in particular, because they haven't closed some of banks. in that sense, they might agree our mario gra mari mary o. what is going on on the democratic left with tim geithner. >> there is fuel on the fire with the report about aig, the big insurer and the fact with the new york fed, mr. geithner was there decided that all the banks who had the credit default swap, they were going to be paid in full, and it makes them look like they're looking out for bank. the left is just not done beating on wall street. they still have a lot there, they feel as though they've got to come out and they have been using mr. geithner appearances. and the federal reserve chief ben bernanke appearances to exorcise demons of poplism. this is a problem for the president because it gets in the way of sound economic policy. sny don't mary --
11:23 pm
>> paul: i don't think it would make a difference if tim geithner went in terms of the actual policy that the administration is pursuing. some people throw the fame of neil diamodiamonm jamie diomon who has done a nice job avoiding the worst impact that happened to citigroup or bank of america. would he make a difference? >> he would be popular in the provinces. >> paul: another wall street guy at treasury? >> yeah. exactly. no, it probably wouldn't. that is my point. geithner cannot be held responsible for the policy. you need treasury secretary to take responsibility. i'd like to name a success successor>> paul krugman? >> but he'd who we could get confirmed now. >> paul: i tell you, dan, as long as unemployment is above 10% and heading to election year next year where the democratic majority, if stays
11:24 pm
high, the unemployment is in jeopardy. they will look for a ritual sacrifice, someone to throw over the side and blame. >> yes, but the 10% unemployment will be sitting there. they're not putting in place policies to allow economy or businesses to invest or have a confidence they can invest. look at the healthcare bill, cap and taid. card check and to be sure the investment in afghanistan. the overhang of uncertainty on the investing community is huge, almost unprecedented. they're not doing anything to reverse that. >> paul: do you think after healthcare passes assuming it does that the afghanistan is going to pivot somehow and focus on jobs and the economy for the whole election year? >> they're trying to pivot. they're having a jobs summit. the problem they have is most of the ideas is creating jobs and spending more money. deficit problems and climbing unemployment rate.
11:25 pm
they're in a box. >> paul: kim, last work. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. misses of the week. swiffer wet jet cleans so deep, you'll love it. your old mop will just have to get over it... [ engine rattles ] [ man ] love stinks! ♪ love stinks! ♪ yeah! yeah! [ female announcer ] new swiffer wet jet is redesigned. it cleans deep in corners. its solution penetrates layers of dirt and its absorbent pad locks it away to clean better than a mop. the newly redesigned swiffer wet jet. ♪ love stinks!
11:26 pm
11:27 pm
>> paul: time now for out hits and misses. dan? >> miss to myself. because i missed oprah winfrey. i'm not saying i miss her, i'm saying i missed her completely. here was the most famous person on television for 25 years and you know what? i basically never watched the
11:28 pm
show. >> paul: you were working for a living. >> i think i watched it once. but, you know, i'm not knocking oprah. this woman created an empire, tremendous personality. all i'm saying this defines someone who is totally out of it. no idea what she did for 25 years but wish her luck in the future. >> this is a miss for the new york state charter school cap. by law there can only be 200 charter schools in new york state if you can believe it. the state is starting to run up against that cap, so that means a lot of charter school managers might go to other jurisdiction to look for work because they can't open schools here. 40,000 new york city children are waiting to get in charter schools. there is a cap. >> paul: what a disgrace. kim? >> this is a hit to the leaker or hacker who put some 3,000 e-mail from the climate research you want on the internet. crew is the spiritual home of the theory of manmade global
11:29 pm
warming and the e-mails and documents show what many long suspected this is about politics, not science. e-mails appear to show the scientists manipulating data, trying to keep those who oppose the view out of leading journals and hide the work from the public. better sooner than later. maybe now we can have an honest discussion about the science behind global warming. >> paul: sure seems to blow a hole in the case, for the fact it's somehow a real consensus about manmade global warming. what are the political impacts? >> the ramifications go beyond even global warming, paul. as kim said, maybe we can have an honest discussion about the science. i worried that science run the risk of discrediting the discipline. >> paul: getting politicized. >> science was the one discipline in american life people felt was reliable. here you have them absolutely gaming the numbers. i think the ramifications are terrible. >>l:

The Journal Editorial Report
FOX News November 28, 2009 11:00pm-11:30pm EST

News/Business. Paul Gigot discusses news, politics, society and finance. (CC) (Stereo)

TOPIC FREQUENCY United States 7, The F.b.i. 5, Tim Geithner 5, Somalia 4, Europe 4, New York 3, Oregon 2, America 2, Kim 2, Mary 2, Britain 2, Washington 2, Obama 2, Mr. Geithner 2, Christine Romer 1, Minneapolis 1, California 1, U.s. 1, Vietnam 1, Us 1
Network FOX News
Duration 00:30:00
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 6/11/2011